HS2 spiralling costs

Bandwagon syndrome, or if you go deeper, the innate tendency of humans to feel safe believing what other humans with whom we identify do. It’s absolutely innate to everyone (including TJ) – people identify with groups

pure nonsense.  I am perfectly capable of looking at the data and making my own mind up.  I despise the Tories with all my heart – not because its trendy but because my partner and I spent our lives dealing with the damage they have inflicted ion the poor.  when yo have seen the results of their deliberate cruely time and time again then it colours your view

I object to HS2 because its another way of London sucking money out of the rest of the country and its so obvious that HS2 was never going to have any effect for the majority of the population.and the money wasted on this huge vanity project could have been spent so much better with much more beneficial effects if spent outsdide London

Population of London is roughly the same as the North West so I assume transport spending is close aswell.

Nowhere close. London has a genuinely excellent public transport system. It has the advantage though of significant public subsidy and of all being run by TfL under devolved powers.

When Thatcher deregulated the buses (“market forces / competition”), London was spared that particular blight so it’s got buses run by one company (TfL) for the public rather than half a dozen private bus companies fighting it out for the most profitable routes.

London has geography on its side too, it’s a fairly simple hub and spoke pattern for most of it. Nowhere else in the UK even comes close to that level of transport investment.

ctk
Full Member
Population of London is roughly the same as the North West so I assume transport spending is close aswell.

I missed out the winky face/ question mark. I believe London gets x2.5 more spending per person. The rest of the country really does need levelling up. Absolutely crazy that it’s a Tory governments idea to do it. More believable that they don’t intend to.

I despise the Tories with all my heart – not because its trendy

That wasn’t my point at all.

Well its what you said Molgrips!

Bandwagon syndrome, or if you go deeper, the innate tendency of humans to feel safe believing what other humans with whom we identify do. It’s absolutely innate to everyone (including TJ) – people identify with groups – the more popular a viewpoint is the more popular it becomes.

this is pure cod psychology and bad psychology at that.  It may be a general trend but cannot be extrapolated to individuals

Just to point out i am not a train hater i am on the train right now.   Twice in two days.  100mph electric ttain.  Wifi and charging.  This should be the minimum standard.in the uk.

<This message posted via Wi-Fi from a high-speed train. Apologies for brevity, misspelling and shocking punctuation>

😜

Wifi and charging. This should be the minimum standard.in the uk.

Sod that. I have a cellphone and a portable charger. Instead focus on a train from e.g. SE to Scotland not costing £180 return!! Maybe I would use it more then… as it stands it’s just WAY cheaper to drive.

this is pure cod psychology and bad psychology at that.

I think it’s a pretty widely accepted phenomena isn’t it? At it’s most basic it’s just an easy way for everyone to assimilate cultural norms. It’s why you’re not applying makeup, high heels and tights like your 18thC ancestors. (because no one else is)

This should be the minimum standard.in the uk.

Did you miss the bit where it’s been pointed out by several posters that it’s incredibly difficult (if not impossible in places) to upgrade the existing Victorian infrastructure?

The current lines, especially across the north – but also more broadly across most of the country – are surrounded by buildings, wiggly, go through long tunnels, over viaducts/bridges and cannot be upgraded. Not without literally ripping the entire thing up, reboring tunnels and straightening the rails. All for the sake of being able to put an electric train on it that can go 40mph faster but at the cost of decades of disruption.

Lets say you upgrade a line between Manchester and Leeds. OK, what about Liverpool, Warrington, Sheffield, York, Doncaster, Hull…? This is about a NETWORK. I think that’s been poorly understood from the start, the fact that HS2 was part of a whole network that was intended to be part of NPR. That’s the only way that the whole economic benefit gets unlocked. It’s not “a fast train to London”. It’s a connectivity network for the entire north.

It’s also not only about speed, something else which has been excessively commented on. It’s about capacity, speed, reliability and connectivity, all interlinked.

Currently, places like Bradford are woefully under-served by rail. Freight in and out of Hull and other NE coastal towns is neglected. There’s universal condemnation from northern leaders about the Integrated Rail Plan proposals and the supposed “upgrades” that are alleged to be coming.

To upgrade rail across the north, it needs HS2 in full and the NPR network across the top of it. Not a few bits of electric here and there then back to diesel as it goes through the big tunnel.

Well its what you said Molgrips!

No it’s not, I said humans have this innate tendency, and we do. You have a tendency to think you know all about something, overly simplify it and then bang on like you’re the world expert; when as a non-expert you should be open to discussion of all the complex issues surrounding the topic. So for that reason, I’m out.

Re trains, the original topic – HS2 may not be perfect, but it’s a start, and one we should embrace IMO. You can’t make a journey without a first step, even if it is faltering. The fact that they’ve ‘cancelled’ the eastern leg is by far the biggest problem.

I object to HS2 because its another way of London sucking money out of the rest of the country

It’s really not.

It teally is molgrips.  You have been given the data

The problem with HS2 is its sucked up all the money that could have done more for more people spent more wisely.

No i didnt miss that bit crazy legs.  The money wasted on HS2 could have been used to give yournew transpennie line.  To provide better train services etc but its all been spent on HS2 instead

I thought any money created for HS2 was in effect money ringfenced for it under legislation? If HS2 disappeared overnight, so does the money allocated for it,  You can’t “spend it elsewhere” as it literally doesn’t exist.

Is that not right?

Crazy legs.  I have listened and accepted what you said about the limited abuty to upgrade.  So some new infrastructure needed.

I just maintain that the money spent on HS2 would have privided .more benefit for more people if spent in the m62 corridor wven if (as i now understand) that means new infrastructure

I am astonished that anyone wver thought it would be built to Yorkshire.   That bit was such an obvious sacrificial add on

A we point of order.   Hs2 was only ever going less than halfway up the country.  .  Manchester is in the southern half of the uk

I have learnt stuff on this thread.  Thanks for thar

@nickc

Correct.

@tjagain

It’s ringfenced funding “created” for HS2. It’s not available to be spent on other rail, hospitals, social care, roads or defence.

This is standard on large scale infrastructure. The Millennium Dome, all the Olympic stuff (there were plenty of arguments about “oh it could pay for a football field for every school…”)
No it couldn’t, it was to build an Olympic park.

Nickc

That is true of all government spending

Its still money spent tbat if spent elsewhere would have given more benefit

Are you really claiming  the same could not have been done for Other projects.  Its an absurd arguement

Its atill government spending.  It still adds to government debt.  Of course it could have beenspent elsewhere

Btw bad spelling because i am usung a Phone without reading glasses 😀

I am astonished that anyone wver thought it would be built to Yorkshire.

Have to agree with this. It might have been pushed by the now Chancellor for years. It might have been promised by the now PM in order to win votes in the North. But anyone that ever believed that either of them would stick to their word, or really care about infrastructure in the North, is as gullible as they come.

Of course it could have beeb spent elsewhere

But is isn’t. Our “boosterism” PM talked about spending on infrastructure spending, but as soon as the chancellor says that money needed saving…. BOOM… the North has its budget decimated. Cancelling Yorkshire HS2, and NPR, doesn’t free up that money to spend elsewhere. And, if it did, that spending would take place in the South East. That’s the first and last priority for this government.

Did you miss the bit where it’s been pointed out by several posters that it’s incredibly difficult (if not impossible in places) to upgrade the existing Victorian infrastructure?

Have we managed to electrify any lines yet? Let me guess in the South East and to and from London?

Money should be spent elsewhere before London. Start HS2 in the North then join it to London when the Northern bit is finished. The trains to and from London are the best on the UK network already, we should upgrading everything else first.

It teally is molgrips. You have been given the data

Lol have I bollocks. That’s not ‘data’ in any sense. I actually read the report.

But whatever.

Molgrips – you have been given the data on this thread and on other similar ones.  Its a proven fact that improving transport links in and around london draws money away from the towns that are newly connected to london.  this is not a controversial point.  Its accepted and well understood.

London gets many times the public transport subsidy of any other region.  Again well proven and accepted.  Again this is london sucking money out of the rest of the UK

Lol have I bollocks. That’s not ‘data’ in any sense. I actually read the report

You have seen that London gets more spent on transport per person thaneverywhere else in the country and in many cases double or triple. Surely to Christ you think this is wrong?

You have seen that London gets more spent on transport per person thaneverywhere else in the country and in many cases double or triple. Surely to Christ you think this is wrong?

How much money does London actually need spending on it?
How much economic growth comes from that spend?
How much would GDP fall if that money wasn’t spent?
How much would GDP increase if that money was taken from London and spent elsewhere?
What would the result on tax receipts be if that was done?

There are so so many questions here, the situation in the North is very different from the situation in London, SE Wales, Scotland and everywhere else. In my view it’s nonsensical to simply assume that every region should have the same spend per capita. It’s that kind of logic that produces the most ridiculous budgetary decisions.

Instead, each region should have the money it NEEDS spent on it. There’s no question that other areas are underfunded, of course, but the assertion that every region should receive the same money on transport per capita is illogical, in my view.

Molgrips – you have been given the data on this thread and on other similar ones.

No, you’ve given me data that YOU think is sufficient, however I don’t think it is. And you simply reiterate ad infinitum. That’s not good debate.

Again this is london sucking money out of the rest of the UK

And yet, it also generates more money for the rest of the UK through its economy.

Honestly you lot are oversimplifying to the point of absurdity.

There’s no question that other areas are underfunded,

And yet, it also generates more money for the rest of the UK through its economy

You’re nearly there mate.

And yet, it also generates more money for the rest of the UK through its economy.

this is also wrong and well proven and accepted

You seem to have such a blind spot about this which I find astonishing considering where you live is badly underfunded compared to London!

Instead, each region should have the money it NEEDS spent on it.

correct – londons needs are much less than other areas but it still gets the lions share of the funding

I doubt any of the major decision makers in this (Sunak, Johnson etc) will move to Bradford when they retire..

On a related note I heard TFL need government money to replace the 70s stock on the Bakerloo line. Presumably this would free up some stock for the North.

londons needs are much less than other areas

How so?

You seem to have such a blind spot about this which I find astonishing considering where you live is badly underfunded compared to London!

No, I’m just thinking about it in much more depth than you appear to be.

I mean – London clearly relies on its tube network. What are the extra costs of funding that vs say, overland trams or light rail, or busses?

Read this next bit very slowly, carefully, preferably more than once before reaching for your keyboard:

1. Non-London areas are obviously underfunded.
2. I dispute the fact that London sucks money away from the rest of the UK. The ONS thinks it subsidises the rest of the UK, and it would seem to me even then to be a very complicated thing to unpick.
3. I have not yet seen anything that says the needed per-person spend is the same across the UK.
4. The existing network that the economy depends on in London is already big and expensive, for historical reasons. So that needs upkeep. The rest of the UK needs new investment, in terms of new projects. So you can’t really compare the two like-for-like. Different environments, different needs.

If you want to convince me you’re right, you need to do a lot more than simply post a link and keep saying ‘you’ve been given the facts’. It’s not going to work, you cannot convince me of anything by brute force, sorry. You need to explain it with knowledge, reasoning, RELEVANT numbers and evidence, and when I scrutinise them you need to be able to come back and justify your reasoning.

So the questions for you are as follows:

– How exactly does London ‘suck’ money from the rest of the UK?
– Why should the per-capita spend on public transport be the same across all regions of the UK?

TfL annual budget, which I presume is operational, is about £10bn, and given the geographical coverage that’s probably 25m people who would be using TfL services at least semi regularly, I’d guess. That’s £400 a year per person. How much does it cost to run a bus service across Mid Wales vs how many people it serves? How much for a ferry service to a Scottish Island? Those kinds of services of course need to be subsidised, precisely because they need MORE spend per capita than say Cardiff City centre busses.

Another point:

If you have five areas, and four are underfunded, is the solution to under-fund the 5th one as well?

No, I’m just thinking about it in much more depth than you appear to be.

LOL

Does London suck money from the rest of the UK? I know it sucks up art funding 25% of arts council England funding goes to London, it even sucks up art collections, nicking a fantastic collection of photography from Bradford. I would have gone to Bradford to see it but getting there from South Wales is so bloody difficult…

Yes London has a transport infrastructure that needs maintaining and masses of art museums that I assume suck up the funding but isn’t this problematic for you? Wouldn’t it be better to spread stuff out a bit? Art collections, government departments, national stadiums etc?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/dec/23/london-stop-sucking-up-cash-britain

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/feb/02/bradford-photography-collection-move-vanda-reviled-vandalism

If you have five areas, and four are underfunded, is the solution to under-fund the 5th one as well?

If 4 areas get £400 per person and the 5th gets £1000 what would you do?

(Never mind that there is no need to underfund anywhere and investment in transport brings in cash FFS!)

Never mind that there is no need to underfund anywhere and investment in transport brings in cash FFS!

Which has been my point all along.

But you said this nonsense:

molgrips
Full Member
London NEEDS many times more money spent on it than other places because there are so many more people and businesses.

More people? We have transport spending statistics per person and its many times more PER PERSON. More businesses? No wonder when so much govt money is spent there! Let’s spend more money on the rest of the country to encourage businesses elsewhere.

Thread bump:
Transport Select Committee is meeting now to discuss the Integrated Rail Plan. Featuring Mayor of Greater Manchester Andy Burnham.

https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/9dbbb7e7-5a1c-4550-8465-96965d60c57f

Live at the moment but I assume it’ll be in the archive for a bit afterwards.

Thread bump with the latest wholly unsurprising news…
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64901985

Although this is quite amusing:

Small but obvious mistake in the copy for that BBC article….

The high-speed railway will link London, the Midlands and but not the North of England.

Levelling up.

They’re still carrying on with the ludicrous pretence that it’s ever going to make it north of Birmingham?

Bless ‘em.

It could be worse. The 171 mile Phase 1 of the California high speed rail project will now cost more than the whole 500 mile route was supposed to cost.

https://jalopnik.com/californias-cant-afford-128-billion-la-bullet-train-1850205169

…and that one doesn’t go to Hebden Bridge either.